Negowiki: A Set of Community Tools for the Consistent Comparison of Negotiation Approaches
There is a number of recent research lines addressing automated complex negotiations. Most of them focus on overcoming the problems imposed by the complexity of negotiation scenarios which are computationally intractable, be it by approximating these complex scenarios with simpler ones, or by developing heuristic mechanisms to explore more efficiently the solution space. The problem with these mechanisms is that their evaluation is usually restricted to very specific negotiation scenarios, which makes very difficult to compare different approaches, to re-use concepts from previous mechanisms to create new ones or to generalize mechanisms to other scenarios. This makes the different research lines in automated negotiation to progress in an isolated manner. A solution to this recurring problem might be to create a collection of negotiation scenarios which may be used to benchmark different negotiation approaches. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a framework for the characterization and generation of negotiation scenarios intended to address this problem. The framework has been integrated in a website, called the Negowiki, which allows to share scenarios and experiment results with the negotiation community, facilitating in this way that researchers compare and share their advancements.
KeywordsUtility Function Pareto Front Utility Space Automate Negotiation Negotiation Mechanism
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Buttner, R.: A classification structure for automated negotiations. In: WI-IATW 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 523–530. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
- 3.Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An analysis of feasible solutions for multi-issue negotiation involving nonlinear utility functions. In: AAMAS 2009: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1041–1048. IFAAMAS, Richland, SC (2009)Google Scholar
- 4.Fujita, K., Ito, T., Klein, M.: An approach to scalable multi-issue negotiation: Decomposing the contract space based on issue interdependencies. In: 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), vol. 2, pp. 399–406 (2010)Google Scholar
- 11.Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K., Giampapa, J.: Literature review on multiattribute negotiations. Tech. Rep. CMU-RI-TR-04-66, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA (December 2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Lin, R., Kraus, S., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M.: Supporting the Design of General Automated Negotiators. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T., Yamaki, H. (eds.) Innovations in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. SCI, vol. 319, pp. 69–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Marsa-Maestre, I., de la Hoz, E., Velasco, J.R.: A region-based multi-issue negotiation protocol for non-monotonic utility spaces. Computational Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
- 14.Manderick, B., de Weger, M., Spiessens, P.: The genetic algorithm and the structure of the fitness landscape. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Diego, CA, pp. 1143–1150 (1991)Google Scholar
- 17.Vassilev, V.K., Fogarty, T.C., Miller, J.F.: Smoothness, ruggedness and neutrality of fitness landscapes: from theory to application, pp. 3–44. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York (2003)Google Scholar
- 18.Ventresca, M., Ombuki-Berman, B.: Epistasis in multi-objective evolutionary recurrent neuro-controllers. In: IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life, ALIFE 2007, pp. 77–84 (2007)Google Scholar